Hijab Misconception: Between Law And Sentiment

By Abdulrasheed Ibrahim

Kwara State was recently in the news over Hijab misconception
which nearly put Ilorin, the state capital into an unsual religious
crisis. Although this is an issue I had earlier decided not to
comment on but this response was prompted by an assertion made by
Bishop David Oyedepo, the Founder of Living Faith Church also known
as Winners Chapel in his church. The Bishop who is also a Kwaran
has asserted:

“It is such a nasty development in Kwara state where Muslims are
asking their students in our schools to wear Hijab, and the church
said ‘no’. I have never seen a place in my life where a tenant will
be decreeing for the landlord …you know the reason why? We have
never shown the world the other side of God. God is not a toy .Ours
is consuming fire, let us show them the consuming fire of God, they
need to know .Leave the schools for the owners, go to your schools,
is there any fight? Stop putting fingers in the eyes of others. The
church is a time bomb when God turns his back on anybody or any
system, that system is grounded. My advice is leave the schools for
the owners, find your schools…men and women can wear hijab
there…Stop putting your fingers in the eyes of others when they are
not blind”

Ordinarily one would have ignored the above assertion by Bishop
Oyedepo, but when an assertion is seen to be misleading and
inciting, it is the duty of those that know better to respond to
set the record straight so that the multitude will not to be led
astray by those who know nothing about the situation on the ground
but are only out to create mischief on the land. I doubt if Bishop
Oyedepo is aware of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ilorin
judicial division delivered on Thursday 20th September 2019 in
CA/IL/108/2016 – Incorporated Trustees of Christian Association of
Nigeria & Ors Vs. Kwara State Government & Ors. The Christian
Association of Nigeria (CAN) having earlier done the wise thing by
going to the High Court of Kwara State to ventilate their
grievances, but upon refusal of their claims by the lower court,
they proceeded to the Court of Appeal to exercise their right of
appeal which they are entitled to.

For the benefit of those who have not been privileged to read
the judgment of the appellate court, I will here quote extensively
the relevant parts of the decision reflecting the claims of the CAN
in that case. Since the case bothered on constitutional issue, five
Justices of the Court of Appeal i.e. Mojeed Adekunle Owoade; Sai’du
Tanko Hussein (read the lead judgment); Hamma Akawu Barka; Misitura
Omedere Bolaj-Yusuf; Boloukuromo Moses Ugo, JJCA sat in the panel
that heard the appeal. According to the Court of Appeal in its
judgment:

“…With the introduction of schools grant in aid programme by
government, sometime in 1974, there was the clamour from various
religious denominations including the 3rd -11th Appellants
requesting the 1st -3rd Respondents to take over the schools
established by them in order to enjoy the grant in aid
programme…The surrender of those schools by 3rd -11th Appellants
was not shown to have been made on any conditions… Government
nonetheless came in to promulgate the Kwara State Education Law of
1974 .The law has since then been reviewed a lot of times, the
extant or the existing law on this point is the Kwara State
Education Law of 2006…

“….In any case all the hullaballoo surrounding the question
whether the identified schools are ‘public school’ has been laid to
rest by the definition of that term at section 41 of the Kwara
State Compulsory Free Universal Basic Education to mean ‘A school
which is assisted out of funds provided by the Federal or state or
local Government’. ”

The Court of Appeal continues:

“The Appellants are not disputing the fact that over 150 schools
identified by them are beneficiaries of government grant , an
arrangement whereby the 1st and 3rd Respondents provide grants –in
aid for the affected schools, give regulations on the academic and
administrative activities /programmes of the school, recruit ,post
and transfer staff, pay salaries ,allowances, benefits and other
emoluments of the staff of the schools ,build class rooms ,provide
infrastructures and facilities for the schools, hence the affected
schools in the light of all these are under the control and
management of government as represented by the 1st and 3rd
Respondents, they are ‘public’ and not ‘private’ schools or
institutions and this arrangement has subsisted over the years
,since 1974 under a law known as the Education Law of Kwara State.
The law has been reviewed a couple of times…”

“I am not unaware of the submissions made by the Appellants in
this regard through learned counsel representing them. To them the
introduction of of certain policies to the schools under focus by
government: such as the conversion of classrooms into mosques, the
‘flooding’ of this schools with Islamic Teachers, the wearing of
Hijab by female students and pupils among others, are policies or
acts which are antithetical to Christian doctrines and values upon
which the schools were established by the owners i.e the appellants
and for which reason there was an infraction of the appellants’
rights to run , manage and propagate the Christian religion and
values as guaranteed under section 38 of the constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999 (as amended).Mention was also made
of section 44 of the same constitution…

‘The provision, particularly provision of subsection 1 of
section 38, guarantees freedom therein contained to the appellants
and all students admitted to the schools under focus .Every person
has a right to conduct himself in a manner permitted by his
religious calling, but the provision –does not permit any person
under the guise of propagating his religion to impose his beliefs
on another person who does not belong to the same religious calling
with him”

“The Appellants have by no means alleged the restriction of
Christian students from the practice of their religion or that
Christian students were prohibited by 1st -3rd Respondents from the
practice of their religion by reason of the control exerted by them
in the management of the affairs of those schools .If that were the
case ,their grievance would have been understood as genuine. This
is a case .Rather it is the Appellants, who are not happy to see
the 1st -3rd Respondents continue to allow certain policies being
introduced to those schools under focus ,some of which are
co-educational, multi-ethnic and co-religious institutions, have
been run or managed as such public institution for well over a
period of 40 years. The control and management of those identified
schools, in their own way , by the Appellants in line with their
Christian beliefs and values ,not minding the heterogeneous nature
of those schools ,smacks discriminatory. The Constitution under S.
42 (1) prohibits those tendencies which the Appellants want to
bring to bear .Section 38 (2) also forbids it.It sounds rather
ironic to me that the Appellants who cry foul and shouted to high
heaven that their rights to freedom of thought , conscience and
religion had been violated , are the same group who are hell bent
to unleash their own practices on the other people who are not of
the same religious inclination. The Appellants see the wearing of
hijab by students of the school under focus as provoking enough and
an insult in school or institution established to practice
Christian religious doctrines.

“There is no evidence coming from them on record as would
suggest that Christian female students were compelled to wear hijab
.The Hijab, the practice where Moslem female cover their heads with
veil or head cover ,is an act of Ibadah or worship as recognised in
the Islamic religious worship. This act or practice is also in tune
with the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as
amended)…”

Since the above quoted parts of the judgment of the Court of
Appeal are written in clean English Language, I do not think anyone
needs to be a Professor of English language to understand what the
Court of Appeal has decided in the case as the judgment speaks for
itself. Some of the questions need to be answered by Bishop Oyedepo
are : Where is the justification for his assertion of “our schools”
in his above statement in view of the Court of Appeal Judgment? In
what way, is wearing of Hijab by a Female Muslim student
antithetical to Christian doctrines? Were women during the biblical
time not wearing the similarity of hijab or veil? Is Bishop Oyedepo
also closing the gate of his Covenant University against Female
Muslim Students putting on hijab of veil? What other side of God,
is he threatening to show? Is Bishop Oyedepo calling on his
brethren to take up arms against the Kwara State Government?

Bishop Oyedepo also boasted and talked about “landlords and
tenants”. But other questions to him are: if the real owners of the
land had not been tolerant and accommodating to the Christian
Missionaries by given them the land to build their churches and
schools, can they claim ownership of any land today? Were those
schools not willingly handed over to the Government? Can one eat
one’s cake and still have it? The most disheartening thing during
the recent hijab crisis in Ilorin was that some Christian fanatics
went to the extreme of destroying the Muslim students’ Mosque at
Bishop Smith Memorial College at night and charted away their
properties. They had earlier during the day chased those students
away. The hoodlums also blocked the well being used by Muslim
students to perform ablution for prayers on the false claim that
the school belong to them and Muslims wearing hijab have no right
to be there. It is this kind of madness that sometime lead to
crisis, if the other side had not been patient enough .This country
today needs religious understanding and tolerance and not religious
incitement or confusion as religions are not set up for destruction
but rather to create peace and harmony among people from different
backgrounds.

On what Bishop David Oyedepo referred to as their schools where
hijab are not wanted, it is necessary to let the Bishop be aware,
if he does not know till day that those schools do not belong to
them or anyone but rather to the Government of Kwara State. The
Bishop should not allow himself to be misled by the fact that those
schools still retain their Christian names i.e Baptist, Bishop
Smith, St. Anthony or Mount Camel among others. There are stiil
those that bear the Muslim or Community names like Ansar Islam or
Ansar Deen or Baboko or Barakat but that does not take away the
fact that they all belong to the government after being taken over
from their original owners. The school that is today called Ilorin
Grammar School,(IGS), Ilorin was originally known as Ilorin
Community School established by the father of the incumbent
Governor of Kwara State who he is now late in person of Alhaji
AbdulGaniyu Folorunsho Abdulrasaq (SAN). He was the first lawyer
from the old Northern Region of Nigeria. Can the incumbent Governor
today claim ownership of that school because it was established by
his father, after being taken over by the government ? The answer
to this is capital NO. I dare say that Bishop Oyedepo’s assertion
is false, unfounded and misleading. .

In wake of Amasa Firdaus’s Hijah’s call to bar ceremony, I had
written under an article titled CALL TO BAR AND HIJAB CONTROVERSY
as follows:

“…Now that Amasa Firdaus has been called to the bar by the Body
of Benchers with her Hijab, the controversy seems to have
resurfaced. The argument by some of our colleagues that the call to
bar of Firdaus by the Body of Bencher will now open the flood gate
to all kinds of people to come with their various religious attires
asking to be called to the bar, to me is an argument that cannot
hold water. The question that I have been asking some of those who
have engaged me in discussion is that: Is there anything harmful in
this simple Hijab wears by this lady? The explanation I have given
to some people who care to listen is that any Muslim lady that
adopts the type of Hijab wears by Firdaus wears it to everywhere
she goes. It is not mainly for religious or ceremonial purpose.
Everywhere she goes she makes it to form part of daily dressing.
Can this be said of other religious or ceremonial attires?”

It is very unfortunate that we live in a country where some
people only respect the court judgment in their favour .When a
judgment is against them ,they do everything to undermine it. If
the Appellants (CAN) are still aggrieved by the judgment of the
Court of Appeal, the best they should do is to tell their lawyers
to proceed to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land
rather than closing schoos’l gates against the Female Muslim
Students wearing Hijab as that would amount to a contempt of court
that is punishable under the law. In the case of Abdulkareem Vs
Lagos State Government (2016) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1535) 177, the Court of
Appeal held that:

“… The refusals to allow the 1st and 2nd appellants wear Hijab
on their school uniforms during or after school hours breached
their right to freedom of religion because, the wearing of hijab by
female Muslims constitutes an act of Islamic worship…”

The issue at hand is that of law and not sentiment. Will the law
allow the breach of fundamental rights of any citizen? The answer
is capital NO! It will amount to hypocrisy for anyone to argue that
the right of a Female Muslim Students to wear hijab should not be
protected as guaranteed under the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria. Another unfortunate thing on this issue is
that our Human Rights activists have gone mute. Is Human Rights
agitation now becoming selective in this country? We should not
allow unnecessary hatred for others to becloud our sense of
reasoning and the need to be tolerant to one another. What threat
does the wearing of hijab pose to any decent society? Will it be
rational to stand against its being used by anyone who desires it
in this period when higher institutions of learning are trying to
regulate dressing particularly among women to ensure decency? Can
any rational or objective mind kick against the wearing of Hijab by
Muslim women? Simon Kolawole (SK), a journalist and columnist wrote
in his ThisDay Newspaper on Sunday Column of 21st March 2021 as
follows:

“…I have never hidden my view on Hijab: I have absolutely
nothing against people wearing it to school, same way I don’t care
if you wear ‘deeper life’ scarve .the schools where crisis have
erupted are owned and funded 100 percent by the state ,not by any
church or mosque. Anybody who feels aggrieved by the government
policy should please go to court rather than stir strife. Self-help
will only worsen matter. Aviodable!”

We have had a situation where some people have gone to court to
ventilate their grievances but have refused to accept the verdict
of the court Those religious leaders that ought to advise their
followers to be law abiding are now threatening to show the other
side of their God, the meaning of which is best known to them. With
the boasting of Bishop David Oyedepo, if there is any further
breakdown of law and order, those in authorities should know the
direction to turn to.In a decent society, nobody is above the
law.

By Abdulrasheed Ibrahim, LL.M, Notary Public

NOTE: Anyone is at liberty to disagree with my
above submissions as I will surely appreciate a balanced, fair and
objective rebuttal.

08055476823, 08164683735: abdulrasheedibrahim362@gmail.com

By Abdulrasheed Ibrahim

Kwara State was recently in the news over Hijab misconception
which nearly put Ilorin, the state capital into an unsual religious
crisis. Although this is an issue I had earlier decided not to
comment on but this response was prompted by an assertion made by
Bishop David Oyedepo, the Founder of Living Faith Church also known
as Winners Chapel in his church. The Bishop who is also a Kwaran
has asserted:

“It is such a nasty development in Kwara state where Muslims are
asking their students in our schools to wear Hijab, and the church
said ‘no’. I have never seen a place in my life where a tenant will
be decreeing for the landlord …you know the reason why? We have
never shown the world the other side of God. God is not a toy .Ours
is consuming fire, let us show them the consuming fire of God, they
need to know .Leave the schools for the owners, go to your schools,
is there any fight? Stop putting fingers in the eyes of others. The
church is a time bomb when God turns his back on anybody or any
system, that system is grounded. My advice is leave the schools for
the owners, find your schools…men and women can wear hijab
there…Stop putting your fingers in the eyes of others when they are
not blind”

Ordinarily one would have ignored the above assertion by Bishop
Oyedepo, but when an assertion is seen to be misleading and
inciting, it is the duty of those that know better to respond to
set the record straight so that the multitude will not to be led
astray by those who know nothing about the situation on the ground
but are only out to create mischief on the land. I doubt if Bishop
Oyedepo is aware of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ilorin
judicial division delivered on Thursday 20th September 2019 in
CA/IL/108/2016 – Incorporated Trustees of Christian Association of
Nigeria & Ors Vs. Kwara State Government & Ors. The Christian
Association of Nigeria (CAN) having earlier done the wise thing by
going to the High Court of Kwara State to ventilate their
grievances, but upon refusal of their claims by the lower court,
they proceeded to the Court of Appeal to exercise their right of
appeal which they are entitled to.

For the benefit of those who have not been privileged to read
the judgment of the appellate court, I will here quote extensively
the relevant parts of the decision reflecting the claims of the CAN
in that case. Since the case bothered on constitutional issue, five
Justices of the Court of Appeal i.e. Mojeed Adekunle Owoade; Sai’du
Tanko Hussein (read the lead judgment); Hamma Akawu Barka; Misitura
Omedere Bolaj-Yusuf; Boloukuromo Moses Ugo, JJCA sat in the panel
that heard the appeal. According to the Court of Appeal in its
judgment:

“…With the introduction of schools grant in aid programme by
government, sometime in 1974, there was the clamour from various
religious denominations including the 3rd -11th Appellants
requesting the 1st -3rd Respondents to take over the schools
established by them in order to enjoy the grant in aid
programme…The surrender of those schools by 3rd -11th Appellants
was not shown to have been made on any conditions… Government
nonetheless came in to promulgate the Kwara State Education Law of
1974 .The law has since then been reviewed a lot of times, the
extant or the existing law on this point is the Kwara State
Education Law of 2006…

“….In any case all the hullaballoo surrounding the question
whether the identified schools are ‘public school’ has been laid to
rest by the definition of that term at section 41 of the Kwara
State Compulsory Free Universal Basic Education to mean ‘A school
which is assisted out of funds provided by the Federal or state or
local Government’. ”

The Court of Appeal continues:

“The Appellants are not disputing the fact that over 150 schools
identified by them are beneficiaries of government grant , an
arrangement whereby the 1st and 3rd Respondents provide grants –in
aid for the affected schools, give regulations on the academic and
administrative activities /programmes of the school, recruit ,post
and transfer staff, pay salaries ,allowances, benefits and other
emoluments of the staff of the schools ,build class rooms ,provide
infrastructures and facilities for the schools, hence the affected
schools in the light of all these are under the control and
management of government as represented by the 1st and 3rd
Respondents, they are ‘public’ and not ‘private’ schools or
institutions and this arrangement has subsisted over the years
,since 1974 under a law known as the Education Law of Kwara State.
The law has been reviewed a couple of times…”

“I am not unaware of the submissions made by the Appellants in
this regard through learned counsel representing them. To them the
introduction of of certain policies to the schools under focus by
government: such as the conversion of classrooms into mosques, the
‘flooding’ of this schools with Islamic Teachers, the wearing of
Hijab by female students and pupils among others, are policies or
acts which are antithetical to Christian doctrines and values upon
which the schools were established by the owners i.e the appellants
and for which reason there was an infraction of the appellants’
rights to run , manage and propagate the Christian religion and
values as guaranteed under section 38 of the constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999 (as amended).Mention was also made
of section 44 of the same constitution…

‘The provision, particularly provision of subsection 1 of
section 38, guarantees freedom therein contained to the appellants
and all students admitted to the schools under focus .Every person
has a right to conduct himself in a manner permitted by his
religious calling, but the provision –does not permit any person
under the guise of propagating his religion to impose his beliefs
on another person who does not belong to the same religious calling
with him”

“The Appellants have by no means alleged the restriction of
Christian students from the practice of their religion or that
Christian students were prohibited by 1st -3rd Respondents from the
practice of their religion by reason of the control exerted by them
in the management of the affairs of those schools .If that were the
case ,their grievance would have been understood as genuine. This
is a case .Rather it is the Appellants, who are not happy to see
the 1st -3rd Respondents continue to allow certain policies being
introduced to those schools under focus ,some of which are
co-educational, multi-ethnic and co-religious institutions, have
been run or managed as such public institution for well over a
period of 40 years. The control and management of those identified
schools, in their own way , by the Appellants in line with their
Christian beliefs and values ,not minding the heterogeneous nature
of those schools ,smacks discriminatory. The Constitution under S.
42 (1) prohibits those tendencies which the Appellants want to
bring to bear .Section 38 (2) also forbids it.It sounds rather
ironic to me that the Appellants who cry foul and shouted to high
heaven that their rights to freedom of thought , conscience and
religion had been violated , are the same group who are hell bent
to unleash their own practices on the other people who are not of
the same religious inclination. The Appellants see the wearing of
hijab by students of the school under focus as provoking enough and
an insult in school or institution established to practice
Christian religious doctrines.

“There is no evidence coming from them on record as would
suggest that Christian female students were compelled to wear hijab
.The Hijab, the practice where Moslem female cover their heads with
veil or head cover ,is an act of Ibadah or worship as recognised in
the Islamic religious worship. This act or practice is also in tune
with the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as
amended)…”

Since the above quoted parts of the judgment of the Court of
Appeal are written in clean English Language, I do not think anyone
needs to be a Professor of English language to understand what the
Court of Appeal has decided in the case as the judgment speaks for
itself. Some of the questions need to be answered by Bishop Oyedepo
are : Where is the justification for his assertion of “our schools”
in his above statement in view of the Court of Appeal Judgment? In
what way, is wearing of Hijab by a Female Muslim student
antithetical to Christian doctrines? Were women during the biblical
time not wearing the similarity of hijab or veil? Is Bishop Oyedepo
also closing the gate of his Covenant University against Female
Muslim Students putting on hijab of veil? What other side of God,
is he threatening to show? Is Bishop Oyedepo calling on his
brethren to take up arms against the Kwara State Government?

Bishop Oyedepo also boasted and talked about “landlords and
tenants”. But other questions to him are: if the real owners of the
land had not been tolerant and accommodating to the Christian
Missionaries by given them the land to build their churches and
schools, can they claim ownership of any land today? Were those
schools not willingly handed over to the Government? Can one eat
one’s cake and still have it? The most disheartening thing during
the recent hijab crisis in Ilorin was that some Christian fanatics
went to the extreme of destroying the Muslim students’ Mosque at
Bishop Smith Memorial College at night and charted away their
properties. They had earlier during the day chased those students
away. The hoodlums also blocked the well being used by Muslim
students to perform ablution for prayers on the false claim that
the school belong to them and Muslims wearing hijab have no right
to be there. It is this kind of madness that sometime lead to
crisis, if the other side had not been patient enough .This country
today needs religious understanding and tolerance and not religious
incitement or confusion as religions are not set up for destruction
but rather to create peace and harmony among people from different
backgrounds.

On what Bishop David Oyedepo referred to as their schools where
hijab are not wanted, it is necessary to let the Bishop be aware,
if he does not know till day that those schools do not belong to
them or anyone but rather to the Government of Kwara State. The
Bishop should not allow himself to be misled by the fact that those
schools still retain their Christian names i.e Baptist, Bishop
Smith, St. Anthony or Mount Camel among others. There are stiil
those that bear the Muslim or Community names like Ansar Islam or
Ansar Deen or Baboko or Barakat but that does not take away the
fact that they all belong to the government after being taken over
from their original owners. The school that is today called Ilorin
Grammar School,(IGS), Ilorin was originally known as Ilorin
Community School established by the father of the incumbent
Governor of Kwara State who he is now late in person of Alhaji
AbdulGaniyu Folorunsho Abdulrasaq (SAN). He was the first lawyer
from the old Northern Region of Nigeria. Can the incumbent Governor
today claim ownership of that school because it was established by
his father, after being taken over by the government ? The answer
to this is capital NO. I dare say that Bishop Oyedepo’s assertion
is false, unfounded and misleading. .

In wake of Amasa Firdaus’s Hijah’s call to bar ceremony, I had
written under an article titled CALL TO BAR AND HIJAB CONTROVERSY
as follows:

“…Now that Amasa Firdaus has been called to the bar by the Body
of Benchers with her Hijab, the controversy seems to have
resurfaced. The argument by some of our colleagues that the call to
bar of Firdaus by the Body of Bencher will now open the flood gate
to all kinds of people to come with their various religious attires
asking to be called to the bar, to me is an argument that cannot
hold water. The question that I have been asking some of those who
have engaged me in discussion is that: Is there anything harmful in
this simple Hijab wears by this lady? The explanation I have given
to some people who care to listen is that any Muslim lady that
adopts the type of Hijab wears by Firdaus wears it to everywhere
she goes. It is not mainly for religious or ceremonial purpose.
Everywhere she goes she makes it to form part of daily dressing.
Can this be said of other religious or ceremonial attires?”

It is very unfortunate that we live in a country where some
people only respect the court judgment in their favour .When a
judgment is against them ,they do everything to undermine it. If
the Appellants (CAN) are still aggrieved by the judgment of the
Court of Appeal, the best they should do is to tell their lawyers
to proceed to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land
rather than closing schoos’l gates against the Female Muslim
Students wearing Hijab as that would amount to a contempt of court
that is punishable under the law. In the case of Abdulkareem Vs
Lagos State Government (2016) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1535) 177, the Court of
Appeal held that:

“… The refusals to allow the 1st and 2nd appellants wear Hijab
on their school uniforms during or after school hours breached
their right to freedom of religion because, the wearing of hijab by
female Muslims constitutes an act of Islamic worship…”

The issue at hand is that of law and not sentiment. Will the law
allow the breach of fundamental rights of any citizen? The answer
is capital NO! It will amount to hypocrisy for anyone to argue that
the right of a Female Muslim Students to wear hijab should not be
protected as guaranteed under the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria. Another unfortunate thing on this issue is
that our Human Rights activists have gone mute. Is Human Rights
agitation now becoming selective in this country? We should not
allow unnecessary hatred for others to becloud our sense of
reasoning and the need to be tolerant to one another. What threat
does the wearing of hijab pose to any decent society? Will it be
rational to stand against its being used by anyone who desires it
in this period when higher institutions of learning are trying to
regulate dressing particularly among women to ensure decency? Can
any rational or objective mind kick against the wearing of Hijab by
Muslim women? Simon Kolawole (SK), a journalist and columnist wrote
in his ThisDay Newspaper on Sunday Column of 21st March 2021 as
follows:

“…I have never hidden my view on Hijab: I have absolutely
nothing against people wearing it to school, same way I don’t care
if you wear ‘deeper life’ scarve .the schools where crisis have
erupted are owned and funded 100 percent by the state ,not by any
church or mosque. Anybody who feels aggrieved by the government
policy should please go to court rather than stir strife. Self-help
will only worsen matter. Aviodable!”

We have had a situation where some people have gone to court to
ventilate their grievances but have refused to accept the verdict
of the court Those religious leaders that ought to advise their
followers to be law abiding are now threatening to show the other
side of their God, the meaning of which is best known to them. With
the boasting of Bishop David Oyedepo, if there is any further
breakdown of law and order, those in authorities should know the
direction to turn to.In a decent society, nobody is above the
law.

By Abdulrasheed Ibrahim, LL.M, Notary Public

NOTE: Anyone is at liberty to disagree with my
above submissions as I will surely appreciate a balanced, fair and
objective rebuttal.

08055476823, 08164683735: abdulrasheedibrahim362@gmail.com